General intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, leadership

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Beyond-General-Intelligence-(IQ)-and-Emotional-The-Rockstuhl-Seiler/fbf485cf6f56f27525bb507e402351ac1a45c625

Emphasizing the importance of cross-border effectiveness in the contemporary globalized world, we propose that cultural intelligence—the leadership capability to manage effectively in culturally diverse settings—is a critical leadership competency for those with cross-border responsibilities. We tested this hypothesis with multisource data, including multiple intelligences, in a sample of 126 Swiss military officers with both domestic and cross-border leadership responsibilities. Results supported our predictions:

(1) general intelligence predicted both domestic and cross-border leadership effectiveness;

(2) emotional intelligence was a stronger predictor of domestic leadership effectiveness, and

(3) cultural intelligence was a stronger predictor of cross-border leadership effectiveness. Overall, results show the value of cultural intelligence as a critical leadership competency in today’s globalized world.

EI and EQ, so girly, right? What bullshit.

Smarter people are still smart once they leave their magic dirt, really?

Great man or great force?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustturak/2013/04/10/8-lessons-from-the-great-man-or-woman-school-of-leadership/#6c9d9a762b4b

The latter completely ignores all of psychology’s findings.
Talk about anti-science, might as well call it Satan’s influence.
And since when has the ambition lauded in the Bible become empty vanity? Surely they are opposites? The first looks like something little but has a lot going on, the second the reverse.

Ambition isn’t a dirty word. I think the bulk of virtue signalling is just misspent ambition by people who find it too explicitly self-interested and capitalist.

Sociology is considered inferior for a reason, it hardly proves anything. It’s mostly fairytales of Will O’ Wisps, haunting looming forces that insidiously infect us while we sleep.

I can understand you’d think there’s no such thing as genius since some pen-pusher has replaced it with pieces of paper that are basically IOUs of Trust us, this guy is good! but the fact remains there are rare humans who can do things the others cannot.

And Einstein was more creative plagiarist than genius. Before he worked in the patent office (at the lowest level, clerk) he had fuck-all ideas. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

He’s the Kim Kardashian of the genius world, famous for his hair.
And that one controversial photo.
Tesla discussed Einstein’s theories before he could hold a pencil.

The fake male co-founder

https://www.fastcompany.com/40456604/these-women-entrepreneurs-created-a-fake-male-cofounder-to-dodge-startup-sexism

That is one interesting social experiment.

To state the obvious.

Misogynistic men only trust other men with their money.

It’s wrong but they have every right, because it’s their money.

The Chinese rent white men for their privilege.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/29/china.rent.white.people/index.html

Studies have shown competence is assumed where it is undeserved.

Blame stock images IDK.

Such men consistently over-estimate their competence.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-28/confessions-of-a-confident-mediocre-man/8562708

Surely it’s the arrogance effect? In the modern world we call this vice a virtue.

“a natural tendency to overrate their past performance on maths tasks by 30 per cent”

It’s terrifying how many men rate themselves as good at maths and then I have to explain 12yo level shit.

This finding is old. There are also far more compulsive liars in the male group, which somewhat explains it. In their minimizing terms, this is bluffing, like lying on a CV (illegal).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

OLD.

These people are the reason we blind exams. These people.

Like Is she flirting? studies all over again. Men don’t really do meta-cognition, by comparison.

This is why we have all the psychometrics. Either you can do it or GTFO.

The masculine traits are the capitalist ones: taking risks, being rude or arrogant, stepping on others, ruthless ambition, Crusaderism, many that are probably antisocial if not tempered by other stuff.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12848221

“A meta-analysis of 45 studies of leadership styles showed that women tend to exhibit many of the character traits associated with effective leadership — such as effective communication, a tendency to empower subordinates, and creative problem solving — and are more likely to adopt effective leadership styles than men.”

They’re selecting the cocky guy who relies on underlings to do his work for him. No wonder so many companies are tanking. Everyone, male or female, hates them. They’re drains, they parasite off the productive. A minority in every group or company do the bulk of the work, remember.

The problem is seeing masculinity as successful without anything to back it up on the project.

We need to upgrade our primal brain that says this man is leading us into battle.

Another part of the problem is seeing everything as gendered.

So there’s no Scientists trying to make the world a better place. Yay!

There’s male scientists trying to make the world a better place.

….

OK, everyone else go home and fuck the cure for cancer?

Like, what do you hope to achieve here? Rah-rahing your pompoms for part of the group?

Why do they have to do that? Ruin everything?

Supposedly, accounting for this bias statistically (with mathematical models and quotas) makes companies more efficient and meritocratic.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/workplace-gender-quotas-incompetence-efficiency-business-organisations-london-school-economics-lse-a7797061.html
“Quotas can work to weed out incompetent men.”

Everyone should be overjoyed by that.

Less stupid people with power, who cares if they have a banana or fig down there?
You’d have to be really insecure to identify strongly with someone who shares a single pair of chromosomes.

HBR has noted incompetent men being promoted on the basis of bravado is an issue for companies.
https://hbr.org/2013/08/why-do-so-many-incompetent-men
Bravado and popularity over actual performance metrics.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/men-and-women-biased-about-studies-stem-gender-bias-opposite-directions/
“The new study’s authors reasoned that men especially might devalue the evidence because it threatens the legitimacy of their status in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Men might also be critical because of prior beliefs that gender bias is not a problem in STEM.”
But they’re proving any bias by believing that female competence is a fairytale.
Those women take exactly the same exams.
Oh, it hurts their ego? Broflakes.

“Men rated the research quality of the abstract less favorably than did women in both samples. This gender gap was especially large for STEM faculty, potentially suggesting that evidence of bias might threaten men in STEM seeking to retain their status.”
“When reading these results, a male scientist might think, “oh my gosh…if we’re going to fix this equality issue, that almost necessarily means that there’s going to be fewer opportunities for men,” said Ian Handley, lead author of the new PNAS paper and associate professor of psychology at Montana State. Handley suggested that discounting evidence more likely reflects a subtle, unconscious process than overt sexism.”
Read Freud, there’s no subtle.
They just lie about it.
The depressing thing is that STEM helps everyone and there’s literally a shortage of talent.
We can’t afford to lose any talent.
People who took it for the money though, can fuck right off.

“This mixed literature tempers the paper’s claims about strong gender bias. But obviously, the paper’s central goal was not to systematically review literature on gender bias, but rather to present studies of reactions to evidence of bias.”
“Based on the best current data, remaining challenges include sexual harassment, bias in teaching evaluations and science mentoring, and gender stereotypes about innate genius and creativity.”
That last one is part of the Genius Famine.

Women can’t be the ‘crazy’ sex and also suddenly the less creative one when studies show they’re linked.

“The new PNAS study shows that men, on average, are less likely to believe this evidence of gender bias where it exists. And that’s a concern, considering men are the current majority of STEM professors. But it’s also a concern if the evidence of gender bias is overhyped. Overhyped claims could make these fields unattractive to women or even make people less likely to believe evidence of bias when it does exist.”

Be honest in science, the musical.

Being a loser can make you crazy

medicalxpress.com/news/2014-12-wealth-power-lack-thereof-heart.html

I am refraining from an easy jibe at SJW expense. Scarcely.

UC Berkeley researchers have linked inflated or deflated feelings of self-worth to such afflictions as , narcissistic personality disorder, , providing yet more evidence that the widening gulf between rich and poor can be bad for your health.

“We found that it is important to consider the motivation to pursue , beliefs about how much power one has attained, pro-social and aggressive strategies for attaining power, and emotions related to attaining power,” said Sheri Johnson, a UC Berkeley psychologist and senior author of the study published in the journal Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice.

It implies men are evil for seeking status too.
There are health studies which show successful people with social status have better health. All other forms are an offshoot.

Studies have long established that feelings of powerlessness and helplessness weaken the immune system, making one more vulnerable to physical and mental ailments. Conversely, an inflated sense of power is among the behaviors associated with bipolar disorder and narcissistic personality disorder, which can be both personally and socially corrosive.

Except women assert dominance socially more than men. http://www.livescience.com/40717-indirect-aggression-between-females-works.html Sure, don’t mention that. Men are power-hungry, never women.

In one study, they were gauged for two distinct kinds of pride: “authentic pride,” which is based on specific achievements and is related to positive social behaviors and healthy self-esteem; and “hubristic pride,” which is defined as being overconfident, and is correlated with aggression, hostility and poor interpersonal skills. [female biased metric]

…”This is the first study to assess the dominance behavioral system across psychopathologies,” Johnson said. “The findings present more evidence that it is important to consider dominance in understanding vulnerability to psychological symptoms.”

It’s fundamentally flawed. Humans need hierarchy. Social dominance is a good thing when the leader is competent.

Did you control for anomalies? No? So who were the crazies? Where is the breakdown of data?
Did you seperate the real achievement group from fake? Did you fact-check? No? Did that division show sex differences? Is that why?

Yeah, that’s why.

Who Needs Nationalism?

Good point on the EU: “Frustrated idealists of today look at the bureaucratic monster that oppresses the European people and fail to remember the high-mindedness that motivated the birthing of the beast in Belgium.” Economic free market trade between the strongest players.

European history alone shows that Europe has a mixture of positive and negative-overall divisions i.e. Italian > Romanian culture.

Italy is a great example of how the concept of nationhood beyond hard borders (English Channel) are created by conditions of war. (If you can’t defend it, at your borders, it isn’t yours.) Odds are, Italy will splinter again as its people splinter and any effort to unite *a* nation as it stands would stave off this tendency to ethnic entropy.

Henry Dampier

Attilla and His Hordes Destroy Italy and The Arts - Eugene Delacroix Attilla and His Hordes Destroy Italy and The Arts – Eugene Delacroix

Nationalism is the most controversial sector of the neoreactionary trichotomy. The most ardent nationalists tend to be suspicious and hostile towards neoreaction, but not always. This essay will survey the modern situation, perform a brief historical review, and then move on to practical considerations of political strategy as it relates to the ethno-nationalist tendency. It closes with a recommendation.

The recent historical background

Since World War II, all the great powers have repudiated previous-held doctrines of rights to ethno-religious self-determination that became popular after the European upheavals of 1848. The victorious Allies supplanted European nationalism with an internationalist set of Universal Human Rights which repudiates the idea of ethnic and religious exclusivity that nationalism requires.

The obvious reason why this happened is because the USSR was an internationalist Marxist dictatorship. The US is and was a universalist democratic world-Empire with an…

View original post 2,612 more words